To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

there is cause to believe that Canisius discriminated against Dr. Gray on the basis of her sex. The second document states that there was also probable cause to believe that Canisius had unlawfully discriminated against by Kevin Saville There has been a recent development in the long-standing legal battle between Canisius and Dr. Marian M. Gray. According to two separate documents received anonymous- to decide whether or not the college has indeed been engaging in discriminatory practices. After being reached by telephone, Richard Cherniella, public information director of the State Division of Human Rights in New York City, said that no date for the hearing has been set. Cherniella also stated that both complaints will be dealt with in one hearing rather than having two different hearings for each complaint. Canisius, however, is refuting the Human Rights Division's findings. In a letter dated April 10, 1985, sent from Mr. Martin Idzik, attorney for the college, addressed to Ms. Ronni Silett at the Division of Human Rights, the school's disagreement with the Division's decision is clearly stated. In the opening paragraph, Idzik states, "The purpose of this letter is to comment upon the lack of administrative due process, and the basic unfairness and the lack of objectivity in the Determinations." Idzik further states the college's (cont'd on page 4) The second document, dated April 11, 1985, states, "After investigation, the Division of Human Rights has determined that it has jurisdiction in this matter, and that there is probable cause to believe that the respondents (Canisius) engaged in or is engaging in unlawful discriminatory practice complained of." As a result, the Division recommended a public hearing be held On January 30, 1978, Gray filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights charging that Canisius had discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. In the second complaint, filed May 25 of the same year, Gray accused the school of discriminating against her in retaliation for her original complaint. The documents were the Human Rights Division decisions on two complaints that Dr. Gray had previously filed. Gray on the basis that she had filed her original complaint pertaining to the sexual discrimination charge. On Friday, April 12, Rev. James M. Demske cut the ribbon to officially open the Delevan College Station of the new Buffalo Light Rail Rapid Transit Line. An open house was held at the station from April 12-16. The underground portion of the system is set to open May 18. Photo by JIM GRECO Special Election Issue Endorsements, page 2. Meet the Candidates, pages 6 and 7. VOLUME LV, NUMBER 20 TAP Bills Fail — Excluded from State Budget Hi "'ifhii • .' - 4 ■MtttKm^^mM0^>^^' W ■ sBB m " - w JEmEP; W jHf JHb W V m QgBfcS jHDV BX&Sg fjf 28HJD£> MRBnjB _ jV ' - - ; J* • mm* <r<"' Serving The College And Community WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1985 Fr. Edmund G. Ryan addresses the Undergraduate Student Assembly concerning the failure of the TAP proposals. ph,„0 greco fails, Ryan wants to work towards placing more effort in getting the bill out of committee. Ryan is "positive that without all the letters there would have been no Bundy increase." Bundy aid gives private colleges in New York money for each degree it confers. The new increases now give each college $1,500 for each baccalaureate degree awarded and $900 for each masters degree. This translates into $190,000 more for Canisius College financial aid. Ryan stated that the increase in Bundy aid "will help ease" the loss of a TAP increase. Also, more money was given to the Higher Education Opportunities program to aid academically and economically disadvantaged students. Ryan feels that one of the reasons the bills failed was because they were not included in Governor Mario Cuomo's original budg- According to Rev. Edmund G. Ryan, S.J., Vice President for Academic Affairs, the bills would have passed if they would have come out of committee to a vote. The Parity Bill proposed to raise the maximum TAP award $400 to $3,100 to undergraduate students. The Equity bill sought to raise awards for graduate and emancipated students. In order for a bill to be voted on, it must first be presented in each house of the legislature by its Finance Committee in the form of a budget. In the Senate, the Equity proposal was included in a preliminary budget draft, but later was not included in the proposed budget. In the Assembly, it was never included. by Jim Greco Despite a strong Canisius lobbying effort, no gains were made in regards to the TAP Parity and Equity bills in the State Legislature. Because the bills never came to avote, there will be no increase in TAP awards for the 1985-86 academic year. However, increases were made in Bundy and HEOP aid. Ryan also cited the lack of motivation on the part of the Independent Student Coalition. Although Canisius lobbied heavily, the other schools "didn't pick up," according to Ryan, noting especially the lack of support of the Nfew York City area schools. One of the major problems, according to Ryan, was the fact that the TAP increases were presented as two different bills. In the past, they were included in one bill. Ryan feels that splitting the bills led to special interest lobbying on the part of the public universities for the Equity bill and thereby split the "united front" lobbying effort successful in the past. To be successful next year' Ryan wants to package the TAP proposals into one bill and work towards having it included in the Governor's original budget. If this et. It was necessary for the Legislature to try to have them added. Another problem was the over-emphasis placed on obtaining co-sponsors for the bills. Although the proposals had over two hundred co-sponsors, these votes were useless since the bills never came to a vote. Lack of Democratic support killed the bills, in Ryan's opinion. New Findings Uncovered in Marian Gray Case ly at the Griffin office last week, the New York State Division of Human Rights has found probable cause to believe that the college had discriminated against Dr. Gray. The first document states that

This image is issued by Canisius College Archives. Use of the image requires written permission from the Archives. It may not be sold or redistributed as a photograph, electronic file, or any other media. The image should not be significantly altered through conventional or electronic means. Images altered beyond standard cropping and resizing require further negotiation with a staff member. The user is responsible for all issues of copyright. Please credit: Canisius College Archives and Special Collections, Andrew L. Bouwhuis Library, Canisius College.

This image is issued by Canisius College Archives. Use of the image requires written permission from the Archives. It may not be sold or redistributed as a photograph, electronic file, or any other media. The image should not be significantly altered through conventional or electronic means. Images altered beyond standard cropping and resizing require further negotiation with a staff member. The user is responsible for all issues of copyright. Please credit: Canisius College Archives and Special Collections, Andrew L. Bouwhuis Library, Canisius College.

Technical Data

1655.25 KB

Transcript

there is cause to believe that Canisius discriminated against Dr. Gray on the basis of her sex. The second document states that there was also probable cause to believe that Canisius had unlawfully discriminated against by Kevin Saville There has been a recent development in the long-standing legal battle between Canisius and Dr. Marian M. Gray. According to two separate documents received anonymous- to decide whether or not the college has indeed been engaging in discriminatory practices. After being reached by telephone, Richard Cherniella, public information director of the State Division of Human Rights in New York City, said that no date for the hearing has been set. Cherniella also stated that both complaints will be dealt with in one hearing rather than having two different hearings for each complaint. Canisius, however, is refuting the Human Rights Division's findings. In a letter dated April 10, 1985, sent from Mr. Martin Idzik, attorney for the college, addressed to Ms. Ronni Silett at the Division of Human Rights, the school's disagreement with the Division's decision is clearly stated. In the opening paragraph, Idzik states, "The purpose of this letter is to comment upon the lack of administrative due process, and the basic unfairness and the lack of objectivity in the Determinations." Idzik further states the college's (cont'd on page 4) The second document, dated April 11, 1985, states, "After investigation, the Division of Human Rights has determined that it has jurisdiction in this matter, and that there is probable cause to believe that the respondents (Canisius) engaged in or is engaging in unlawful discriminatory practice complained of." As a result, the Division recommended a public hearing be held On January 30, 1978, Gray filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights charging that Canisius had discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. In the second complaint, filed May 25 of the same year, Gray accused the school of discriminating against her in retaliation for her original complaint. The documents were the Human Rights Division decisions on two complaints that Dr. Gray had previously filed. Gray on the basis that she had filed her original complaint pertaining to the sexual discrimination charge. On Friday, April 12, Rev. James M. Demske cut the ribbon to officially open the Delevan College Station of the new Buffalo Light Rail Rapid Transit Line. An open house was held at the station from April 12-16. The underground portion of the system is set to open May 18. Photo by JIM GRECO Special Election Issue Endorsements, page 2. Meet the Candidates, pages 6 and 7. VOLUME LV, NUMBER 20 TAP Bills Fail — Excluded from State Budget Hi "'ifhii • .' - 4 ■MtttKm^^mM0^>^^' W ■ sBB m " - w JEmEP; W jHf JHb W V m QgBfcS jHDV BX&Sg fjf 28HJD£> MRBnjB _ jV ' - - ; J* • mm*